The way I see it, there is no way to a Future for White Children but through a sexual revolution to reconstruct White family values. So, I don't think a dispute about what White family values would look like is anything other than crucial. There will be no White future without stable homes to produce healthy White children. (Although, in feminist dogma, this doesn't matter because people who haven't been born yet are irrelevant.) This is why I am unable to separate "gender politics" from WN.

You are right. The unavoidable fact is we're doomed as a race unless white women have significantly more babies and white men decide to be there as responsible husbands and fathers. Everything else is futile without this.

If every white family produced at least six healthy race-conscious white kids, what the ******s and Jews were doing would be irrelevant to us. As it is now, the movement often encourages young whites to waste their prime years on drinking beer, brawling, getting tattoos, attending skinhead concerts and useless rallies and demonstrations.

Take a lesson from the Amish. They DOUBLE their numbers every 20 years!

Thanks for the rep points, Xenologist, respected male. I think one way to heal these rifts is exactly what we are doing right here. Talking, showing each other how we view things. Being willing to forgive and forget when one poster gets a little harsh or argues intensely with your opinion ( which to your credit, you have done quite well).
I think as long as there is respect in the communication and avoidance of making broad negative statements about a specific gender, differences can be bridged and compromises found. Forgiveness and understanding are the keys. And by the way, I wouldn't say what I say to you, or take the time to debate with you if I didn't give a [email protected] about you.

You just made some beautiful points in your last post that are uplifting rather than divisive. We do need for white women to recapture their honor and live up to their potential, and stop settling for less (damaging relationships, bearing children with no strong father figure in the mix) because it's "just the way things are now" or because it's easy. And we do need for white men to throw off the negative programming that has influenced some of them to act with less honor and responsibility than their white ancestors and predecessors.

I think the "postive strokes" method works best. In other words, rather than condemning a group (males or females) outright for certain faults and negative behaviors, we compliment them for their positives, and ask and expect them to live up to their legacy and our high standards as to what white people should be.

Okay, now something like this can make me fall in love, lol. And see, they were just words, which shows ya that some of us don't require having the world handed to us to make us happy. This is definitely a rift-healer, for any real woman would appreciate being thought of in such a way. And you know what? If some chick is going to get uptight over it, to hell with her. Weed out the good from the bad, rather than think of every woman you come across as a potential female supremacist/man-hater who wants to castrate you.

what is your purpose with all the divisive men vs women posts? For every horror story suffered by men in the divorce/children/custody/child support arena, there are just as many horror stories suffered by women with the divorce/custody/lack of child support/being screwed over/being beaten/being abandoned arenas....so what is the point?

You seem to be on a crusade to point out that white women just suck. Okay, if that's what you think that's your right, but you do so "in the name of white nationalism". White nationalism doesn't need divisiveness between our men and women. If you really want to help the cause, why not work on healing the rifts instead of exploiting them?

I reference your quote that "marrying a white woman today in hopes of building a happy family is like putting your life savings down on a black jack game and in hopes of a fortune".

I think some people don't know how to relate to the opposite sex without drama and fighting.

If the only thing I can do for the white nation is subdivide, then I am leaving.

I think there are different degrees of resentment. But I look at terms like that in the same way I would look at the term "anti-semitism." There's a difference between hating women just to hate them (and I wouldn't think that to be very common), as opposed to a man having resentments over what women have done to him.

Quote:

Excellent words. I shall have to think on them.

Well, I never really became anti-feminist until I became Nationalist. I looked for reasons our birthrate was so low, and couldn't ignore the largest and most obvious one.

Well, that is a problem, but it's not the only problem, nor is "feminism" the only source of that problem. Low birthrates can be just as easily attributed to a lot of misinformation about "overpopulation" which came out a couple of decades ago (not so much anymore). The Cold War and the threat of nuclear annihilation led some to believe that there's no point in bringing a child into such a threatened and unstable world.

But I don't think that it's because White women don't want to have children. I think that they do want to have children. I've seen a lot over the past decade about maternal instincts and biological clocks, so some attitudes are different than they used to be.

Quote:

You don't? Maybe not on this board....

Not on this board, but I do know that lemmings come in both the male and female variety. But those who can understand and see what's going on gain my respect and admiration. The only trouble is, they live way on the other side of the country.

Quote:

Maybe on this board. But I've never seen this.

It seems to be somewhat rare. Perhaps there's a feeling that if women criticize other women, it might be interpreted as a "betrayal" of their sisterhood. So, that may be why there's such limited public rhetoric about it, but some women can be very vocal and candid about it.

Quote:

So have I, but I have learned to feel no sympathy for them.

It took me a long time to learn that, but in the process I ended up shutting down all feelings, not just feelings of sympathy. That was my mistake.

Quote:

All of the women I have known to satay with abusive men have had other options coming out their ears, but they are loyal to the man who is "so cool" that he has the "confidence" to treat her like trash. There are so many kind, decent guys, but it's always the abusuve jerks who have the chicks. It's not our fault they won't leave.

I've been in exactly the same place, and for many years, I tortured myself with the belief that it was my fault that the object of my affections turned against me and went back to the abusive jerk. Well, actually, she did leave the abusive jerk, but only to go to another guy who was an even bigger jerk - someone who was higher up in the "goon" food chain.

I truly believed that there was something wrong with me, even though everyone who knew the situation assured me that there was something wrong with the woman I had fallen in love with. I didn't believe that. She eventually ended up with some big-time drug dealers who had their own gang with automatic weapons, a big house, lots of drugs, and tons of cash. How could I compete with that? I didn't even do drugs. She seemed to just waste away. She survived a skull fracture that occurred when some rival gang pulled a drug/cash rip-off. In some ways, I still blame myself for that. If I had been more aggressive and had more "finesse" rather than the awkward, bumbling youth I was, she might have picked me and she might have been spared what eventually happened to her. Mixed with that is a kind of "I told you so" attitude which acknowledges that she made her choice and she must live with it.

Quote:

Oh, that's right- their "confidence has been crushed." Lame.

Yes, I agree that it is lame. I've noticed that they tend to get their confidence from whichever man they happen to be with.

Quote:

Men do what works. Men do not decide what works. Abuse works, provided it does not get out of control. I hate it too, but it's not my fault.

That's true, and the bottom line, it does work, on many different levels. I've said many times that the USA didn't become a great superpower by being a bunch of nice guys. It's a ruthless world, and in order to thrive, one must be ruthless. I'm a bit flabbergasted that it seems to work on such a personal level as that, since I find it a bit twisted on an individual level. It seems to backwards from the way it should be. Now, we're "nice" as a collective and abusive as individuals. It should be just the opposite.

Quote:

I don't blame them entirely; they don't make the rules. I resent them, though, because they are the most able to keep a woman, and they don't deserve to.

Actually, in the long run, I've found that they're really not able to keep a woman. Even if the woman doesn't leave, the men themselves might be inclined to leave at some point. I know a lot of these guys personally, and believe you me, these guys are screwed up in the head. Very few of them are truly "happy" in any meaningful way. Yeah, they may be getting their rocks off, but if you've ever seen them in some of their "less-inspiring" moments, then it does tend to balance out. These jerks like to have "nice guys" as friends, too, since they might need a place to crash if their wife or girlfriend gets mad and throws them out. Either that, or they may have unwittingly pissed off someone's husband or boyfriend, and they might come to you because they're scared to death of getting shot. Remember, even among jerks, there is a pecking order and a kind of food chain. "Nice guys" aren't necessarily at the bottom of that food chain either.

One major problem is that radical feminism has ruined it. It has exalted whores, made them respectable, mainstream. It is best to have longterm relationships, perhaps with pysical intimacy (with pureblood whites only of course). But nowadays a girl isn't 'empowered' if she doesn't screw around or dress like Christina Aguilera. It used to be that guys kept a mistress on the side to do perverted stuff with and the nice girl to bring home to mom and dad.
Ironically these sort of standards persist, but now whores want to be taken home to mom and dad. Guys are pressured to take the slut home. Now if the slut can't be taken home, then the good decent females need to be made into sluts so that way sluts don't feel so bad about themselves; that way, sluts can be taken home too.

Instead of courting, as was used more so before the sexual revolution, it has become common to sleep with someone before even getting to know someone's first name.. Which in my opinion is disgusting, some of you may disagree but you cannot get closer to someone than having them inside of you... Do you really want a stranger poking around your insides?? But as a result the majority of guys think that if a woman doesn't put out on a first date she's a prude or uptight feminist who won't allow touching What's wrong with wanting to get to know someone first before you have sex with them? Much less fall in love, or get married... Ok I think my rant is finished... for now...

I personally believe that any woman who even would consider putting out on the first date, and any guy who wants her to or would accept it, is wrong and awful and just outright sick.

Good guys wait, and good gals make sure the guy waits, indeed they demand it.

"Women's liberation" was just a codeword for making promiscuity the norm, the only thing they liberated women from was morality.

You don't sound stuffy, maybe a little old fashioned but I get accused of that too It's not an entirely bad thing having some good, old fashioned values.

Feminism is highly overrated in my opinion. What's wrong with wanting to stay home and have a family. No one is saying you can't work, but a good, solid family is a rare thing nowadays with divorce and unmarried couples having children. If a woman has a good career (high paying position), owning their own residence, car, etc. etc. etc... what good is a woman to a man besides having sex with? The men don't need to provide what is already there and could possibly feel useless besides in the sack.

Instead of courting, as was used more so before the sexual revolution, it has become common to sleep with someone before even getting to know someone's first name.. Which in my opinion is disgusting, some of you may disagree but you cannot get closer to someone than having them inside of you... Do you really want a stranger poking around your insides?? But as a result the majority of guys think that if a woman doesn't put out on a first date she's a prude or uptight feminist who won't allow touching What's wrong with wanting to get to know someone first before you have sex with them? Much less fall in love, or get married... Ok I think my rant is finished... for now...

On the other hand, there is a minority of guys who still have manners and are a bit chivalrous. They are a rare find but worth waiting for. Some guys scoff at it because of the feminist movement (women don't need men blah blah blah) but what is wrong with saying please and thank you, or opening a door for a kind lady? OK. I'm really done this time

I think you get what you expect. I expect to be treated with respect. I expect a man to understand that I am not going to have sex with him at the beginning of the relationship. I expect him to behave as a gentleman. When I see that a man is not going to behave, I show him to the door. I am certainly not a prude, but I personally do not see the wisdom in sleeping with every man I date in a search for Mr. Right. That seems rather desperate to me. I am not mean to men; usually I am very nice, but we have to set limits. I believe it is up to us to set the limits and determine the nature of the relationship. Men are not always crazy to commit; it seems to me that sleeping with them early in the relationship just gives them another reason to not commit. We do have that power in the relationship. If a man does not want to wait, he can always go elsewhere. Most of the men I have dated in the past year are very polite and respectful.

In my humble opinion it is better that a person doesnt seek or expect fulfillment in another as this is illusory. We must seek for this within.
I dont think that feminism, which is neither inherently good or bad has anything to do with it. The way in which men and women relate to each other has changed for all kinds of complex social reasons.
Far better to seek platonic friendships and then if the situation feels right it would develop from there.
It is difficult to establish such relationships without overhauling your present means of networking.
Do you through work or outside interests have opportunities to engage men and do these outlets provide you with the means to meet like minded people which is vitally important?

Your post is very wise. There is no better way to judge the true nature and character of a person than to simply be friends with them.

You don't sound stuffy, maybe a little old fashioned but I get accused of that too It's not an entirely bad thing having some good, old fashioned values.

My husband and I do it the old-fashioned way; he works and I stay home.....We don't have a "baby-sitter" to speak of ,so we have alot of time together with our two kids. I am very much playing the "woman role"....and we both like it that way.I was not always this way, I worked and went to school before I met him, with a BIG "career" planned, but I think because he is very much all MAN, it allowed me to be all WOMAN! It works better I think, and most importantly, WE are raising the kids we decided to have, not someone else! Just my thoughts!